The Role of Feedback Information for Calibration and Attunement in Perceiving Length by Dynamic Touch.

Abstract

Two processes have been hypothesized to underlie improvement in perception: attunement and calibration. These processes were examined in a dynamic touch paradigm in which participants were asked to report the lengths of unseen, wielded rods differing in length, diameter, and material. Two experiments addressed whether feedback informs about the need for reattunement and recalibration. Feedback indicating actual length induced both recalibration and reattunement. Recalibration did not occur when feedback indicated only whether 2 rods were of the same length or of different lengths. Such feedback, however, did induce reattunement. These results suggest that attunement and calibration are dissociable processes and that feedback informs which is needed. The observed change in variable use has implications also for research on what mechanical variables underlie length perception by dynamic touch.

Towards a new ecological conception of perceptual information: Lessons from a developmental systems perspective

“…Indeed, arguing that information is contingent on constraints, Chemero's conception of information allows different variables in the array to carry information about the same environmental property. Thereby it is consistent with the empirical finding that in the process of learning and development, the object of perception can remain the same while participants change in the variables they detect (e.g., Fajen & Devaney, 2006;Jacobs et al, 2001;Kayed & van der Meer, 2009;Menger & Withagen, in press;Michaels & de Vries, 1998;Runeson et al, 2000;Runeson & Andersson, 2007;van Hof et al, 2006;Wagman et al, 2001;Withagen & Michaels, 2005b;Withagen & van Wermeskerken, 2009). …”

“…van der Meer (2000, 2007) showed similar developmental changes in variable use in the control of eye blinking movements during the first 6 months after birth. This process of the education of attention has also been demonstrated in several perceptual tasks: the visual perception of the pulling-force of a stick figure (e.g., Michaels & de Vries, 1998), the visual perception of the relative mass of colliding balls (e.g., Jacobs et al, 2000Jacobs et al, , 2001Runeson et al, 2000;Runeson & Andersson, 2007), and height and length perception by dynamic touch (Menger & Withagen, in press;Michaels et al, 2008;Wagman et al, 2001;Withagen & Michaels, 2005b;Withagen & van Wermeskerken, 2009). 2 These studies all show that the detected variables often correlate with the to-be-perceived property, but are not specific to it.…”

“…This conception of perceptual information is thus consistent with recent studies of perceptual learning and development. As we have seen, these studies have revealed that in the process of learning and development, perceivers often change in the pattern they detect, but still perceive the same environmental property (although the accuracy of the perception changes) (e.g., Fajen & Devaney, 2006;Jacobs et al, 2001;Menger & Withagen, in press;Michaels & de Vries, 1998;Runeson et al, 2000;Runeson & Andersson, 2007;van Hof et al, 2006van Hof et al, , 2008Wagman et al, 2001;Withagen & Michaels, 2005b;Withagen & van Wermeskerken, 2009). …”

“…Inclined to an ecological perspective, these studies have searched for specifying patterns in the ambient arrays that uniquely constrain the perception or action. Yet they have revealed that humans often rely on variables that correlate with, but are not specific to, the to-be-perceived property (e.g., Caljouw et al, 2004;Mi-chaels et al, 2001;Tresilian, 1999;van de Langenberg et al, 2006;van der Kamp et al, 1997 However, after feedback they can converge on more useful patterns in the ambient array, but often end up detecting variables that do not specify the to-be-perceived property (e.g., Fajen & Devaney, 2006;Jacobs et al, 2000Jacobs et al, , 2001Kayed & van der Meer, 2000Michaels & de Vries, 1998;Michaels et al, 2008;Runeson et al, 2000;Runeson & Andersson, 2007;van Hof, van der Kamp, & Savelsbergh, 2006, 2008Wagman, Shockley, Riley, & Turvey, 2001;Withagen & Michaels, 2005b;Withagen & van Wermeskerken, 2009). It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed description of all these studies.…”

“…Although the theory of direct perception has gained credibility over the past couple of decades or so, several empirical studies have revealed inadequacies in the concept of information as specification. Participants were found to vary in the informational basis of their perception or action (e.g., Jacobs, Michaels, & Runeson, 2000;Jacobs, Runeson, & Michaels, 2001;Menger & Withagen, in press;Michaels & de Vries, 1998;Michaels, Arzamarski, Isenhower, & Jacobs, 2008;Runeson et al, 2000;Runeson & Andersson, 2007;Withagen & Michaels, 2005b;Withagen & van Wermeskerken, 2009). Furthermore, several studies have revealed that participants often rely on variables that correlate with, but are not specific to, the to-be-perceived property (e.g., Caljouw, van der Kamp, & Savelsbergh, 2004;Jacobs et al, 2001;Michaels, Zeinstra, & Oudejans, 2001;Tresilian, 1999;van de Langenberg, Kingma, & Beek, 2006;van der Kamp, Savelsbergh, & Smeets, 1997).…”